mcaryf1 Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Dear All I have newly acquired the Excalibur (UK) version of SC GF modded to 1.07 and am having a minor difficulty in that the Exit button will not fully terminate the program. I get the Exit credits but then the program lingers in my system until I use Task Manager to delete it. I have Win XP SP3 - any suggestions? On a more game related topic I am really enjoying the Editor feature and I have been trying to make it possible to rebuild BBs and other ships sunk in port. After all the Italians rebuilt most of the BBs sunk at Taranto as did the USN for Pearl Harbor and the Brits for the BBs sunk by Italian frogmen. I set the rebuild marker in the editor and made the build cost 70% and time 50%. I have found that the BBs do now reappear in my build list but without any reduction in price. Has anybody else tried this approach with better success? Regards Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Hi Mike, Welcome to the forums and sorry to hear about the trouble and I'm not sure why it would be lingering, does it still do this after a fresh reboot of your system? Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcaryf1 Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 Hi Hubert Yes it does it whatever the recent state of loading the system. Unfortunately I have just had a report that that particular PC has been infected with a sasser virus. I am dealing with that at the moment and I suppose the behaviour may change after that. Unfortunately I have 3 hard drives on that PC so it is going to take many hours to run the Microsoft Malicious S/W removal tool. The failure to close is just annoying rather than serious - a bit like the Sasser virus. Thank you for your sympathy. Do you have any comments on the idea of making it possible to rebuild BBs sunk in harbour? Regards Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 It's certainly an option and one of the reasons we left it in the Editor even if we don't use it ourselves for the default campaigns. I just ran a test and the reduced cost seems to work on my end as I set it to 50% and a BB that was sunk could be rebuilt at half the cost of the other BBs on the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcaryf1 Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 Hi Hubert Thanks for trying it, I had set rebuild at 70% so perhaps that defaulted upwards for some reason as I could ONLY rebuild the sunk ships at full price. I have modded my test game to 50% and will try again. One more question about BBs but actually more general. I am experimenting with giving BBs two strikes. This is not unreasonable as of course they had secondary guns pretty well as powerful as those of a CA. So far it is working rather well and helping BBs to punch their real weight against lesser ships such as CAs and DDs. I have seen that the AI does make use of the two strikes but in general does it consider the real capability of a modified unit so for example would it know that a BB unit could take on 2 x DD or CA? On a similar basis if I make the Japanese bombers more effective against ships (think of Betty's and Nells carrying torpedoes and sinking POW) but less useful against strategic targets would the AI realise that it should use the unit differently? To be honest I am expecting you to say "no" because it would be a very impressive piece of artificial intelligence if it did! Following up a suggestion I made in the Decision Events thread about the possibility of using Events to create real Artic convoys for the Allies, I have now simulated this. I made Iceland a Soviet minor country and gave it the opportunity to build very low cost Tank Groups (40 MPP) and Corps (30 MPP) modded to have higher mobility to simulate lendlease lorries for infantry. I then stuck some of these at half strength in the production queue at monthly intervals and placed one already loaded into a transport off the coast of Iceland. I made the AV for Iceland a poor option by reducing its AP to 1 so these units should not be useful for invasions. This should work fine to allow a human player to try real convoys and could give rise to interesting battles with Tirpitz, some subs and extra aircraft which I based in Norway. The Axis player can force a battle if they wish by blocking the one sea square path to Murmansk/Archangel to ensure the convoy cannot just flash by. Unfortunately when I set the AI to play the Allies it just unloaded the transport unit in the UK where I presume it would be marooned with no supply. I guess it does not fully understand about non-cooperating Allies! As you may have gathered I am really enjoying the opportunities provided by the editor (Japanese Rocket units modified to be Kamikaze planes next!). Regards Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Hi Mike The reason you may not have been able to buy back the BB in your game could depend on its supply level when sunk. The minimum supply level needed can be set in the same place in the Editor, and I'd probably pick a fairly high number, as this will reduce the amount of ships sunk far out to sea after a length combat to the minimum. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcaryf1 Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 Hi Bill and Hubert I tried it again in a more controlled way and it did work with a reduced cost and build time. I think it makes sense as a game option because being sunk in port but then raised again was quite a common fate for Battleships in WW2. Regards Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 You could put replacement with min supply level and have ships use more supply when attacking. Balance it out for missions so if a ship engages it uses X supply so it cant be rebuilt. But in port with full supply it can be rebuilt. Just brainstorming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcaryf1 Posted January 12, 2012 Author Share Posted January 12, 2012 Hi Big Al I guess there are various approaches but for the time being I am only really looking at ways in which I can use the editor to add to the realism because mods to the game engine itself are much less likely to happen. Another realism type edit is to give DDs some chance of evasion when defending against naval attack. They did resort to smoke screens and the like when confronted with bad odds such as when the Italian BBs attacked a British Malta convoy. Also they were typically faster over short distances than for example a WW2 BB so should be able to run away. In the standard game there seems to be a confusion of speed versus range thus DDs are given longer ranges than for example a CV but this is really quite wrong as they needed refuelling at sea to stay the course with a CV and this was not always possible in some weather conditions. It is also possible to look at individual country edits as the Italian Navy concentrated on faster Cruisers because they knew they might face a much stronger British Navy. Thus it might be sensible to give Italian cruisers some level of defensive evasion to simulate the sort of tactical withdrawals that they actually mounted. I have tried giving DDs a defensive evasion possibility of 20% but, when the situation arose in a game I am playing against the AI, one DD evaded 3 attacks from BBs in succession. Unless I am misunderstanding how evasion is calculated that should be less than a 1 in a 100 chance. Regards Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Hi Mike The evasion gives a 20% chance of evading damage every time they are attacked, so what you've seen is perfectly possible. From my experience it's probably best to set it slightly lower, say 10-15%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcaryf1 Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share Posted January 13, 2012 Hi Bill I agree it is possible but the probability of 3 x 20% chances happening in succession is 1 in 125. However, I have actually modded my game so that it is 1 in 10 thus reducing the odds of 3 successful evasions in sequence to 1 in a 1,000. My thought was that the evasion routines might somehow get hooked into registering a second and third success if the first attack was evaded. Regards Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts